by Len Di Gregorio

Created on: May 02, 2008   Last Updated: May 07, 2008

With the current price of a barrel of oil, coupled with the political unrest in the Middle East, it would seem that producing alternative means of fuel would be a widely accepted concept, embraced by both consumers and government alike. But surprisingly, it's not the clear-cut, resounding "yes" decision one would expect. In fact, it's quite unclear whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, at the present time. But what exactly is bio-fuel, and what is it composed of?

Bio-fuel is produced as either a solid, liquid or gas, and its origin is mostly from plant life. The most common types of bio-fuel are ethanol, methanol, and biodiesel. The production of bio-fuel is derived from several sources, including corn, wheat, sugar cane, potatoes, wood, bamboo, vegetable oil, animal fats and methane. Therefore, if we (the USA) can produce an alternative fuel utilizing crops on the land we already possess, then why would any doubt exist, especially when considering its potential benefits: less dependency on foreign oil, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, the development of rural areas, technological advances and employment gains.

The socio-economic implications of producing bio-fuels are both intriguing and controversial:
- Is the rise in the cost of commodities directly related to the production of alternate fuels?
- Does it take more energy to produce bio-fuels, than to produce oil?
- Are bio-fuels a detriment to the environment?
- Can we grow enough crops for both fuel and food consumption?
- Do we have enough land to produce both fuel and food?
- Can we actually reduce our dependency on foreign oil?

What, then, are the answers to questions such as these? Well, it seems to depend on who you ask.

According to The American Biofuels Council, for example, the increase in the price of commodities is a direct result of an improved standard of living in second and third world countries. These countries can now afford to eat meat, and the increased production of grain is necessary to feed livestock, resulting in higher costs. Regarding the usage of fuel, biodiesel has a "positive energy balance" of anywhere from 3.5-1 to 8-1, compared to oil, depending upon the commodity used. The environment also improves, as ethanol can reduce harmful emissions by as much as 90%. And by 2050, we will no longer be dependant upon foreign oil.

By contrast, an article written by Sharon Astyk, for The Energy Bulletin, doesn't present such an optimistic viewpoint, stating that 70% of all corn produced is allocated for livestock, suggesting that consumers must reduce meat consumption in order to fuel our cars. Furthermore, if we produce 10% of our fuel as bio-fuel, this will result in a 0% reduction in foreign oil usage, while using 20% of our farmland. And to meet our present energy needs, we would have to use all of our farmland that is available for cultivating, leaving virtually no land for producing food.

The question remains, then, is it worth producing bio-fuels? The answer is, actually, a resounding "yes", provided that more research and development is implemented, coinciding with government backed programs, which is required for any new technology. Because the day may come, when many of us won't be able to afford to eat OR drive our cars. And, at least in this country, we tend to enjoy doing both.

Learn more about this author, Len Di Gregorio.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.